Principles of DUID Victim Voices
Education
- DUID Victim Voices works with numerous DUID study groups either as a participant, a co-researcher, or as a presenter.
- This website contains much of the fruit of that work.
- DUID Victim Voices provides custom educational support for DUID lobbyists around the country, and occasional testimony support for DUID victims.
- Although victim stories make us wish we could do more, we insist on analyses based more on fact than on emotions.
Lobbying
- When state legislatures are in session considering DUID bills, DUID Victim Voices actively lobbies for bills that support the interests of DUID victims.
Policies We Support
Get the data: Each state needs a mechanism to measure and understand DUID, its scope, causes, consequences, and effect of steps taken to influence outcomes. This requires tracking DUID cases from citation to judicial outcome.
Impairment definition of DUI: Define DUID such that it includes drivers less able than the driver would ordinarily be to operate a vehicle safely. Definitions that say “incapable of safe driving” prevent justified convictions.
Abolish 5 ng/ml THC legal limits: They are scientifically unsound and do more harm than good. See note after the following Drug per se Laws table for our rationale.
Zero tolerance for illegal drugs or legal drugs used illegally: Create a per se violation to drive with any detectable level of illegal drugs or legal drugs used illegally that are found in the driver. The level may alternatively be set to laboratory testing threshold abilities.
Zero tolerance for legal drugs if the driver is impaired: Create a violation to driver with any level of drugs in the body if and only if there is also sufficient evidence of impairment. The level may alternatively be set to laboratory testing threshold abilities.
Mandatory drug testing: Mandatory blood or oral fluid evidentiary testing of all drivers involved in crashes that result in death or serious bodily injury.
Oral fluid roadside testing: Enable use of oral fluid drug testing devices (present/not present) at the roadside to inform officers, support probable cause for further testing and evaluation, or to call for Drug Recognition Experts or other experts to assess drug impairment.
Evidentiary oral fluid testing: Enable the use of oral fluid evidentiary (quantitative) for presence of drugs, especially THC.
Electronic warrants: Enable use of electronic warrants to reduce time delays to collect a biological sample for drug testing.
Enhanced penalties for polydrug abuse: Establish enhanced penalties for driving under the influence of multiple dugs, including alcohol plus other drugs.
Drug per se Laws
| States Drugged Driving Law | |
| Arizona, Georgia, Utah, Illinois | Zero Tolerance, all controlled substances and their metabolites, taken illegally. Illinois has exempted THC and imposed a 5 ng/ml THC per se level |
| Iowa, Rhode Island | Zero Tolerance, all controlled substances. Iowa restricts illegal use only. |
| North Carolina, South Dakota | Zero Tolerance, all controlled substances and their metabolites in minors. NC permits medical use. SD applies to minors only. |
| Delaware, Indiana Pennsylvania, Wisconsin | Zero Tolerance, Schedule I, and some or all of schedule II or III drugs taken illegally |
Kentucky, Michigan, Oklahoma | Zero Tolerance, Schedule 1 except marijuana, plus 15 other drugs |
| Minnesota | Zero Tolerance, Schedule I except marijuana or II taken illegally |
| Nevada, Ohio | Defined levels of several drugs, including marijuana, at 2 ng/ml THC |
| Virginia | Defined levels of several drugs, THC not included |
| Washington | 5 ng/ml THC per se, except zero THC permitted in minors |
| Montana | 5 ng THC per se |
| Colorado | 5 ng permissible inference |
Perversely, the recently enacted 5 ng THC laws in Washington, Montana, and Colorado may do more harm than good. These three states have laws that may make it easier to convict an impaired driver who happens to test at least 5 ng/ml Delta 9-THC. But toxicology laboratories report that the majority of marijuana-impaired drivers test below 5 ng THC. Washington reports 55% test below 5 ng, and Colorado reports 72% test below 5 ng. Impaired drivers who test below 5 ng THC are unlikely to be convicted of DUID, but could possibly be convicted of lesser crimes. Rather than being effective DUID laws, these laws may be nothing more than a license to drive stoned. This is especially true in Colorado, since its law merely provides a permissible inference of DUID guilt, rather than a per se finding of guilt for someone at 5 ng THC or higher.